Processing Gapped Verbs

Transcription

1 DOI /s Processing Gapped Verbs Edith Kaan Carlie Overfelt Do Tromp Frank Wijnen SpringerScience+BusinessMedia,LLC2012 Abstract The time course was investigated of the processing of missing verbs in gapping constructions, such as John ate the hamburger, and Bill the hotdog. Native speakers of Dutch silently read Dutch sentences with and without gapping while their EEG was recorded. A left anterior negativity (LAN) was found at the first possible position at which the gapped verb could be detected, at least, for in participants who performed poorly in an end-of-sentence acceptability judgment task. This suggests that some readers do not anticipate the gapped verb, but infer the gapped verb in a bottom-up fashion, resulting in a LAN. Second, a P600 effect was observed for gapping versus no-gapping conditions, the early part of which was unaffected by plausibility. This suggests that the semantic and syntactic integration of agappedverbisarelativelylateprocess,andinvolvesmechanismssimilartointegratinga wh-phrase object with its verb. Keywords Gapping Ellipsis ERP LAN P600 Introduction Ellipsis constructions are sentences in which some overt verbs and/or nouns are missing. Yet, these missing elements can be easily inferred from a preceding clause or wider context. An example of ellipses is verb gapping, as in Jack washed the pots and Jill the pans. Here, the verb is missing from the second clause, but readers interpret the second clause as having the same verb as the first (washed). Verb gapping and other ellipsis constructions are E. Kaan (B) C. Overfelt Department of Linguistics, University of Florida, Box , Gainesville, FL 32611, USA kaan@ufl.edu D. Tromp Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA F. Wijnen Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

2 interesting from a psycholinguistic perspective. Investigating how humans process material that is not physically present in the spoken or written input may provide insight into what kind of information (syntactic, lexical, prosodic ) is available and used when during sentence processing. Important questions related to the processing of ellipsis are, first, how is an ellipsis site detected, and when? And second, what is reconstructed at the ellipsis site, and when? These questions have been mainly investigated using VP ellipsis constructions, such as John took out the trash and Bill did, too, inwhichdid is the ellipsis site. Several proposals have been put forward as to what is reconstructed at the ellipsis site. According to one approach (Frazier and Clifton 2001), the full syntactic structure of the antecedent (took out the trash, in the example) is reconstructed. Since the syntactic complexity of the antecedent does not affect processing difficulty at the site of ellipsis, it has been proposed that the copying mechanism employed (copy alpha) iscost-free(frazier and Clifton 2001), or that structure is shared between the clauses (Frazier and Clifton 2005). An alternative account is that no structure is copied or shared. Instead, the ellipsis site contains a pointer to the antecedent (as in the content-addressable memory approach proposed by Martin and McElree 2008), or is interpreted as a discourse anaphor (Garnham 2001). We do not aim to distinguish among these approaches in the present study. Instead, our focus is on the question ofwhen the ellipsis site is detected and elided information is accessed and integrated. We will consider two hypotheses: a top-down, predictive approach, and a bottom-up approach. Under a top-down approach, an ellipsis site is anticipated before it is clear that information has been elided. Ellipsis, and verb gapping in particular, typically occurs in constructions in which two clauses are coordinated that are structurally and semantically parallel (for evidence that the parser is sensitive to parallelism, see Frazier et al. 1984, 2000; Knoeferle and Crocker 2009). Therefore, when the parser encounters a coordinating connective and detects that the second clause is parallel to the first, some information of the first sentence may already be reactivated before the actual ellipsis is encountered. Supporting this hypothesis, Callahan et al. (2010) observed that verbs were reactivated when it was clear that the second, coordinated clause was parallel to the first clause. This reactivation of verb information occurred even before there was evidence of ellipsis in the input. Similarly, Poirier (2009, experiment 2) reported reactivation of the first clause subject before the site of the verb phrase ellipsis in the second clause. These results support a top-down, predictive mechanism for processing ellipsis: antecedent information is already reactivated before the actual ellipsis site. In contrast, according to a bottom-up approach, the ellipsis site is not anticipated but inferred only when words or phrases are missing from the input. Supporting this hypothesis, a number of studies on verb phrase ellipsis, and related constructions such as sluicing, reported reactivation of antecedent information (subject or object) only at or immediately after the ellipsis site (Poirier 2009, experiment 2; Shapiro and Hestvik 1995, experiment 1; Shapiro et al. 2003), or even later, especially when the clause with the ellipsis was subordinate to the first clause (Poirier et al. 2010; Shapiro and Hestvik 1995, experiment 2). This suggests that the antecedent is reactivated only when it is clear to the perceiver that information has been elided. In support of such a bottom-up processing of verb gapping, studies using event related brain potentials (ERPs) reported Left Anterior Negativity (LAN) effects at the first word position after the gapped verb (Kaan et al. 2004; Streb et al. 2004). These effects suggest that the parser did not anticipate the gapped verb, and experienced processing difficulty as a result. The findings of the Kaan et al. (2004)andStreb et al. (2004) ERP studies should be interpreted with caution, however. Neither study directly compared gapping conditions to well-matched conditions without gapping. It is therefore still unclear

3 whether gapped verbs are processed top-down, bottom-up, or perhaps, in both ways (Poirier 2009). In the current study, we used ERPs to further address the processing of verb gapping. We avoided the problems observed in the previous ERP studies by testing verb gapping constructions in Dutch. In Dutch, the verb comes in the second position in main clauses, but appears clause-finally in subordinate clauses. Since only coordinated main clauses allow gapping, this enables a close comparison between gapping and no-gapping constructions. The experimental paradigm is illustrated in (1). The blank between parentheses indicates the site of the gapped verb. (1) a. Verb Gapping, Plausible: Anouk zond de kaart aan haar vader, en Julia ( ) de bloemen aan haar moeder. Anouk sent the card to her father, and Julia the flowers to her mother Anouk sent the card to her father, and Julia the flowers to her mother. b. Verb Gapping, Implausible: Anouk schreef de kaart aan haar vader, en Julia ( ) de bloemen aan haar moeder. Anouk wrote the card to her father, and Julia the flowers to her mother Anouk wrote the card to her father, and Julia the flowers to her mother. c. No Gapping, Plausible: Anouk zond de kaart aan haar vader, terwijl Julia de bloemen aan haar moeder stuurde. Anouk sent the card to her father, while Julia the flowers to her mother shipped Anouk sent the card to her father, while Julia shipped the flowers to her mother. d. No Gapping, control for b: Anouk schreef de kaart aan haar vader, terwijl Julia de bloemen Anouk wrote the card to her father, while Julia the flowers aan haar moeder stuurde. to her mother shipped Anouk wrote the card to her father, while Julia shipped the flowers to her mother. In (1a) and (1b), the second clause is a main clause. In Dutch main clauses, the finite verb appears in the second structural position, and can be gapped when the clause is conjoined with another main clause. The first position at which it is clear that the verb in the second clause has been gapped is therefore the determiner (bold) that introduces the object noun phrase. In (1c) and (1d), on the other hand, the second clause is a subordinate clause, as indicated by the subordinating connective while. In this case, the verb in the second clause needs to appear clause-finally; the second clause does not allow verb-second or verb gapping. The conditions in (1c) and (1d) hence, serve as no-gapping controls. If processing of ellipsis proceeds in a bottom-up fashion, the gapped position is detected only at the determiner. We then expect a left anterior negativity (LAN) effect for the gapping

4 versus no-gapping conditions at this position, either in the form of an early LAN (ELAN) because the missing verb creates a phrase structure violation (e.g., Hahne and Friederici 1999), or in the form of a later LAN, either because the structure is non-canonical (Rösler et al. 1993), or the antecedent is retrieved from working memory (Kluender and Kutas 1993). The absence of an (E)LAN effect (in combination with the presence of later semantic and syntactic integration effects), is compatible with a top-down approach. According to this approach, the use of a coordinating connective and the parallelism between the first clause and the first part of the second clause leads to the expectation of verb (phrase) ellipsis. Information of the first verb may therefore already be retrieved before it is clear from the input that a verb is missing, that is, before the determiner is encountered in (1a, b). The occurrence of the determiner right after the subject in the second clause therefore does not lead to any syntactic difficulty, and will not elicit an (E)LAN effect (Callahan et al. 2010; Lau et al. 2006). In addition, to test whether and when the elided information is semantically integrated, we manipulated the plausibility of the noun following the critical determiner (underscored in (1)). A similar manipulation was used in Kaan et al. (2004)forEnglish.Inthatstudy,the N400 and P600 components at the critical noun were larger for the implausible compared with the plausible control condition, suggesting that the gapped verb was semantically integrated immediately after the word that signaled the gap position. To check the time course of semantic integration in the present paradigm, the noun after the critical determiner either could be a plausible (1a) or an implausible (1b) object of the gapped verb. Conditions (1c) and (1d) served as no-gapping controls: the same verb is used in the first clause as in the gapping counterparts, (1a) and (1b), respectively. Note, however, that in the no-gapping conditions, the second noun phrase in the second clause (de bloemen, the flowers in (1)) cannot be interpreted as the object of the first clause verb. The no-gapping control condition (1d) is therefore plausible, whereas its gapping counterpart (1b) is not. If the gapped verb is reconstructed before or at the noun in the gapping conditions, readers will interpret the noun as implausible in (1b) versus (1a), leading to a larger N400 and, perhaps, P600 effect in (1b) versus (1a) than in the no-gapping conditions (1d) versus (1c) (Kaan et al. 2004). Finally, if the integration of a gapped verb with its object argument involves processes similar to that of integrating a moved wh-object and its verb (Fiebach et al. 2002; Gouvea et al. 2010; Kaan et al. 2000; Phillips et al. 2005), a P600 is expected at the noun for the gapping (1a, b) versus no-gapping (1c, d) conditions. In sum, if the ellipsis site is detected bottom-up, we expected a LAN effect at the determiner for (1a and b) versus (1c and d). If the elided information is semantically and syntactically integrated with the verb immediately, we expect an N400 for (1b vs. a), perhaps followed by a P600 at the noun following the determiner. Finally, if syntactic integration is more effortful in gapping (1a, b) versus non-gapping (1c, d) constructions, we expect a P600 effect for gapping versus no-gapping constructions at the noun. Method Participants Thirty-eight native speakers of Dutch participated (32 women, 6 men, years). All reported to be right-handed and not to have any neurological problems or disease. None of them had participated in the materials pretest (see below). Participants received course credit

5 or a small monetary compensation for their time. Participants gave informed consent before the study. Stimuli One hundred and twenty-eight quadruplets were constructed according to the format illustrated in (1). Experimental sentences consisted of two clauses, separated by a comma. The gapping conditions contained the coordinating connective en ( and ), and consisted of 14 words; the no-gapping conditions contained the subordinating connective terwijl ( while ), and were 15 words in length. To make the two clauses in each sentence as parallel as possible and to encourage an interpretation of and as coordinating two clauses rather than two object noun phrases, the subject in both clauses was always a proper name; the object of the first clause was always a full noun phrase and, in most cases, referred to an inanimate object. The object noun phrase used in the second clause was either plausible or implausible as the object of the verb in the first clause. The plausibility of the items was pretested using an off-line plausibility rating test. Forty native speakers of Dutch rated the plausibility of each item on a scale of 1 (unacceptable) to 5 (acceptable). Items were Latin- Squared over four lists, and no participant completed more than one list. Items that received a mean score of 3 or lower for conditions that were intended to be plausible (1a, c, d) were discarded, as were items that received a score of 3 or higher for the implausible condition (1b). The remaining 120 items were divided into four lists (Latin Square design), such that each list contained 30 different items per condition, and each item appeared in a different version on each list. Due to an experimenter error, however, three items were omitted from the experiment. Each list had only 27 rather than 30 items in one of the four conditions (different condition for each list). The complete set of the experimental materials used is given in the appendix. In addition, 96 distractor items were constructed. All consisted of two clauses, and were 9 18 words in length. Half of the distractor items contained one or more proper names. Sixteen distractor items contained en ( and ) without a gapped verb and were plausible; 32 contained terwijl ( while ) and were implausible; 32 contained the coordinating connective maar ( but ) and were plausible (16 of these had a gapped verb); the remaining 16 distractor items were plausible no-gapping constructions and contained different connectives (such as before, after, because ). Procedure Participants were tested individually. They were seated in front of a computer monitor, at a distance of 80 cm. Sentences were presented word by word in the center of the screen. Each word was presented for 300 ms, followed by a 200 ms blank screen. Words were presented in white, Tahoma 14 points font, on a black background. The visual angle was less than 2. To help participants fixate on the middle of the screen, words were presented between two horizontal lines that remained on the screen continuously. A prompt, OK / SLECHT ( OK / BAD ), appeared 1,500 ms after offset of the sentence final word. Participants were asked to indicate the semantic and syntactic acceptability of each sentence as accurately as possible at the prompt by pressing a button on a button box: the leftmost button for ok, rightmost for bad. The next trial started 1,000 ms after their response. The experiment started with a practice block of 5 sentences. Feedback was given automatically during practice. No feedback was given during the actual experiment. Experimental items and distractors were divided into four blocks of equal length. Participants were required to rest for a few minutes between the

6 blocks. In addition, they were told to blink only between the sentences. Participants were allowed to extend the break between the sentences by delaying their acceptability response. The experiment took about 2.5 h per participant in total, including set up. EEG Recording EEG was recorded by means of 58 tin electrodes mounted in an elastic cap (Electro-cap). The electodes were: FPz, Fz, FCz, Cz, CPz, Pz, POz, Oz, AF7/8, FP1/2, AF3/4, F1/2, F3/4, F5/6, F7/8, FC1/2, FC3/4, FC5/6, FT7/8, C1/2, C3/4, C5/6, CP1/2, CP3/4, CP5/6, T7/8, O1/2, P1/2, P3/4, P5/6, P7/8, PO3/4 and PO7/8. An electrode over the right mastoid served as the reference. Electrodes were placed above and below the left eye, and on both outer canthi, to monitor blinks and horizontal eye movements, respectively. Electrode impedance was kept below 5 k. EEG was recorded using a Brain-Amp amplifier (Brain Products GmbH). The signal was filtered on-line between 0.04 and 100 Hz, and was sampled at a rate of 500 Hz. EEG Analysis Data from eight participants were excluded from analysis because of technical problems (3 participants), because they appeared to be a non-native speaker of Dutch (1 participant), or because of an excessive number of eye movements or other artifacts that affected more than half of the trials in a condition (4 participants). Data of the remaining thirty participants were bandpass filtered off-line between 0.16 and 30 Hz and re-referenced to the mean of both mastoids. Artifact free epochs of 1,300 ms (including a 100 ms prestimulus baseline) were averaged for (1) the critical determiner following the position of the gapped verb (average percentage rejected: 19 % of the trials for both gapping and no-gapping conditions); and (2), the noun following the determiner (average percentage rejected: % of the trials per condition). At the critical determiner, the effect of gapping versus no gapping was analyzed using the mean amplitude in the ms (ELAN) and ms (LAN) time windows. At the following noun, we investigated the mean amplitude in the ms (N400), ms, ms (P600), and 900 1,200 ms time windows (late positivity). Time windows were based on the literature and visual inspection. Analyses were conducted separately for midline sites (Fz, FCz, Cz, CPz, Pz) and for the lateral electrode regions: left/right frontal (F7/8, F5/6, F3/4, F1/2), left/right fronto-central (FT7/8, FC5/6, FC3/4, FC1/2), left/right central (T7/8, C5/6, C3/4, C1/2), left/right centroparietal (CP5/6, CP3/4, CP1/2), left/right parietal (P7/8, P5/6, P3/4, P1/2). For each time window, an SPSS repeated measures analysis was carried out with as within-subjects factors Gapping, Plausibility of the verb in the first clause and object in the second (applicable to the analysis of the noun position only), Anteriority (5 levels), and, for analyses involving lateral sites, Hemisphere (2 levels). The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used for effects involving factors with more than two levels to control for sphericity violations (Greenhouse and Geisser 1959). Results Acceptability Judgments Mean percentage accuracy in the end-of-sentence judgments was 90.1 % (SD = 8.1) for the plausible gapping condition (1a); 88.7 % (SD = 10.0) for the implausible gapping condition

7 (1b); 88.9 % (SD = 7.8), for the plausible no-gapping condition (1c), and 91.1 % (SD = 7.0) for the no-gapping control for the implausible condition (1d). There was neither an effect of Gapping (F(1, 29) = 0.19, MSE = 0.007,p =.67), nor of the plausibility of the combination of the critical noun and verb in the first clause (F(1, 29) = 0.09, MSE = 0.004,p =.76), nor was there an interaction between Gapping and Plausibility (F(1, 29) = 1.48, MSE = 0.006,p =.23). This suggests that there are no lingering off-line effects of the implausibility of the combination of the verb in the first clause and critical noun in the nogapping control condition (1d). As we had intended, the no-gapping control for the implausible condition (1d) is regarded as plausible, whereas the gapping implausible condition (1b), using the same verb and noun phrases, is judged as implausible. Reaction times for accurate responses also showed no differences between the conditions (Plausible gapping condition (1a) M = 291 ms (SD = 72); Implausible gapping condition (1b) M = 283 ms (SD = 48); Plausible no-gapping condition (1c) M = 291 ms (SD = 64); No-gapping control for the implausible condition (1d) M = 300 ms (SD = 73); Main effect of Gapping F(1, 29) = 1.70, MSE = 1.17,p =.20; Plausibility F(1, 29) = 0.002, MSE = 1.11,p =.97; Interaction F(1, 29) = 1.18, MSE = 1.69,p =.29). Reaction times are less informative to the purpose of the study, since responses had to be withheld until after the end of the sentence, which was several word positions downstream from the critical words. We will therefore not further consider response times below. ERPs ERPs at the Determiner Figure 1 depicts the ERPs for the gapping and no-gapping conditions (collapsed over plausibility) at the critical determiner. Although numerically an anterior negativity was observed between 100 and 200 ms and between 400 and 600 ms, no effects involving the factor Gapping were significant (ps > 0.14 for the ms interval; ps > 0.13 for the ms window) for all participants taken together. To investigate whether the overall (E)LAN effect was attenuated because of individual variation, we correlated the mean difference in amplitude between the gapping and no-gapping conditions at the left anterior electrodes (F7, F5, F3, FT7, FC5, FC3) with sentence judgment accuracy of the experimental items. Participants who judged the experimental sentences least accurately showed a larger ms negativity for the gapping versus no-gapping conditions (Pearson s ρ = 0.37,p =.045), see Fig.2. This correlation remained significant after an arc-sine transformation of the accuracy data to correct for the skewness of the distribution (ρ = 0.40,p =.031). No such correlation was found for the ms time window (p =.92). To further illustrate the correlation, Figs. 3 and 4 display the ERPs at the F5 electrode for the fifteen best and 15 poorest performers in the end-of-sentence judgment task as determined by a median split of the judgment accuracy. We should mention that the poor and high performing groups thus defined did not differ in the distribution of the end-of-sentence judgment errors across the four conditions (p =.99), suggesting that poor performance was not due to one specific condition [Percentage accuracy for the 15 poor performers: Gapping plausible M = 86.1 (SD= 9.2); Gapping implausible M = 85.1(SD = 12.6); No-gapping plausible M = 85.8(SD = 8.0); No-gapping control for implausible M = 87.1 (SD = 8.1); For the 15 good performers: Gapping plausible M = 94.1 (SD = 4.1); Gapping implausible M = 92.3 (SD = 4.5); No-gapping plausible M = 92.6(SD = 5.9); No-gapping control for implausible M = 94.7 (SD = 3.5)].

8 Fig. 1 ERPs at the critical determiner for 15 electrode sites, collapsed over plausibility. Dotted line:gapping (1a, b); solid line:no-gapping(1c,d).negativepolarityinthisandotherfiguresisplottedup.nodifferences between the gapping and no-gapping conditions reached significance Fig. 2 Scatter plot and linear relation between, on the y-axis, participants judgment accuracy (proportion accurate responses over all four conditions) and, on the x-axis, the mean differences in amplitude in the ms time window between the gapping and no-gapping conditions, collapsed over five left frontal electrodes (F7, F5, F3, FT7, FC5, FC3). Note that the y-axis starts at The poorer the performance on the judgment task, the larger the left frontal negativity

9 Fig. 3 ERPs at the critical determiner for the F5 electrode, for the 15 best performers on the judgment task (as determined by a median split). Dotted line: gapping(1a,b);solid line: no-gapping(1c,d) Fig. 4 ERPs at the critical determiner for the F5 electrode, for the 15 poorest performers on the judgment task (as determined by a median split). Dotted line: gapping(1a, b); solid line: no-gapping(1c, d). Note the ms negativity for the gapping versus no-gapping conditions (arrow) ERPs at the Noun ERPs at the critical noun are displayed in Fig. 5 for the four conditions (1a d). No significant effects involving the factor Plausibility and/or Gapping were obtained in the ms time window (ps > 0.19). Between 500and 700ms, the ERPsto the gappingconditions became numerically more positive at posterior sites, but the effect of Gapping by Anteriority only approached significance on lateral sites (midline: F(4, 116) = 1.57, MSE = 2.62,p =.22; lateral: F(4, 116) = 3.73, MSE = 5.25,p =.055). Between 700 and 900 ms after onset of the noun, ERPs were more positive in the two gapping conditions, (1a and b), than in the two no-gapping conditions, (1c and d) (midline: F(1, 29) = 11.09, MSE = 36.44,p =.002; lateral: F(1, 29) = 6.31, MSE = 43.55,p =.018). The effect of Gapping was most pronounced at posterior sites in the analysis of the lateral electrodes (Gapping by Anteriority, midline: F(4, 116) = 1.09, MSE = 3.28,p =.33; lateral: F(4, 116) = 4.22, MSE = 5.68,p =.041). Separate analyses for each level of Anteriority for the lateral sites showed significant effects of Gapping only for the centro-parietal (F(1, 29) = 9.46, MSE =

10 Fig. 5 ERPs at the critical noun for 15 electrode sites. Thin dotted line: gapping, plausible condition (1a); thick dotted line: gapping, implausible (1b); thin solid line: no-gapping,plausible(1c); thick solid line: no-gapping, control for implausible (1d). Note the positivity (P600) for gapping versus no-gapping conditions between 700 and 900 ms (A), and the continued positivity for the gapping implausible condition (B) 10.84, p =.005) and parietal regions (F(1, 29) = 11.15, MSE = 9.91, p =.002). The ms time window showed no effect of Plausibility (midline: F(1, 29) = 1.11, MSE = 25.05,p =.30; lateral: F(1, 29) = 1.36, MSE = 32.01,p =.25), or interaction between Gapping and Plausibility (midline: F(1, 29) = 2.51, MSE = 31.05, p =.12; lateral: F(1, 29) = 1.25, MSE = 43.39,p =.27). Later, in the 900 1,200 ms window, only the implausible gapping condition (1b) showed a larger positivity compared with the other three conditions, leading to a significant interaction between Gapping and Plausibility (midline: F(1, 29) = 10.17, MSE = 27.64,p =.003; lateral: F(1, 29) = 8.29, MSE = 36.99,p =.007), a main effect of Plausibility (midline: F(1, 29) = 7.23, MSE = 30.71,p =.012; lateral: F(1, 29) = 10.03, MSE = 37.35,p =.004), and a main effect of Gapping (midline: F(1, 29) = 8.33, MSE = 27.30,p =.007; lateral: F(1, 29) = 6.43, MSE = 31.74,p =.017). Pairwise comparisons showed that the ERPs for the implausible gapping condition significantly differed from the other three (midline: all ps < 0.001; lateral, all ps < 0.007), but that the remaining three conditions did not differ from each other (all ps > 0.21). As in the ms interval, the Gapping effect in the 900 1,200 ms window was most pronounced at posterior sites (Gapping by Anteriority, midline: F(4, 116) = 3.90, MSE = 1.92,p =.032; lateral: F(4, 116) = 4.85, MSE = 4.30,p =.028). Separate analyses for each level of Anteriority for the lateral sites show significant effects of Gapping only for the central (F(1, 29) = 4.21, MSE = 6.24,p =

11 .049), central-parietal (F(1, 29) = 8.82, MSE = 8.70, p =.006), and parietal regions (F(1, 29) = 9.67, MSE = 9.27,p =.004). No significant correlations were found between the effects observed at the noun and sentence judgment accuracy. To investigate at what point in time the effect of plausibility started to affect the processing of the gapping constructions, we conducted analyses on a sequence of 20 ms time windows, starting from 640 ms. Effects were regarded as present if the p-value was <.05 in at least three consecutive intervals (Gunter and Stowe 1997). Analysis of the midline electrodes showed that the effect of Gapping started in the ms window after the onset of the noun; the interaction between Gapping and Plausibility started only at 860 ms. This suggests that initially the gapped verb is syntactically integrated with the noun phrase, regardless of plausibility. The plausibility of the noun-verb combination affected the processing of the gapping constructions only 140 ms later. Discussion The aim of this study was to investigate when the ellipsis site in verb gapping constructions is detected and when the gapped verb is accessed and integrated. Our predictions were the following. If the gapped position is detected bottom-up, we expected a LAN effect for the gapping versus no-gapping conditions at the determiner, which is the first position signaling the absence of the verb. If, on the other hand, the gapped verb is anticipated (top-down) based on the parallelism between the first and second clause, the verb in the first clause would have been activated throughout the coordinated second clause (Callahan et al. 2010), and no effects would be observed at the determiner. In both top-down and bottom-up scenarios, N400 and P600 effects were expected at the noun following the determiner in the implausible gapping condition. If the verb information is retrieved immediately or is available all along, and is semantically integrated with the noun, a larger N400, and perhaps, larger P600 effect was expected for an implausible versus plausible noun following the gap (1b vs. 1a), than for the same comparison in the no-gapping conditions (1d) versus (1c). Finally, if the process of integrating a gapped verb with its argument is similar to the process of integrating a moved wh-phrase argument with its verb, a P600 effect was expected at the noun for both gapping (1a, b) versus no-gapping conditions (1c, d). We discuss our findings below. Effects at the Determiner The ERP effects at the determiner, the first possible position at which the gap could be detected, are compatible with the view that gapped information is processed bottom-up, at least in some individuals. Collapsing over participants, we found no effects at the critical determiner. However, the more poorly the participants performed on the acceptability judgment task, the larger their ms LAN effect was for gapping versus no-gapping conditions at the determiner. Our study therefore partly replicates findings from previous studies that report a comparable negativity for gapping constructions (Kaan etal. 2004; Streb et al. 2004). The detection of the ellipsis at the first possible position is compatible with findings from priming studies which report reactivation of the antecedent at or immediately after the ellipsis site (Poirier 2009; Shapiro and Hestvik 1995; Shapiro et al. 2003). Note, however, that the LAN effect in the present study is rather late ( ms), compared to ms ELAN-effects in the previous studies. The later LAN effect suggests that the participants in our study did not experience the combination of a proper name followed by a determiner as an outright ungrammaticality (assuming that the early LAN is a reflection of a phrase structure

12 violation, e.g., Hahne and Friederici 1999), but rather interpreted the determiner as a cue that the sentence was grammatical, yet missing an element. A sequence of a noun (proper name) followed by a determiner is much more frequent in Dutch than in English, hence, the determiner may not have been interpreted as a phrase structure violation in the present study, as opposed to the English constructions tested by Kaan et al. (2004). In addition, the early LAN effect in the Streb et al. (2004) study in German may have been due to ambiguity of the phrase preceding the critical word. In the Streb et al. study, the proper name preceding the gapped position could either be the subject or indirect object of the second clause. The critical word, which indicated that the verb was gapped, also disambiguated the preceding noun phrase as the subject of the clause (which may have been a non-preferred structure, see, e.g., Carlson 2001). In the present experiment, in contrast, the proper name preceding the critical word was likely to be interpreted as the subject of the second clause rather than the indirect object, and hence, was unlikely to trigger syntactic reanalysis at the post-gap position. The (later) LAN in the current study can then be interpreted to reflect either the reactivation of the antecedent (Kluender and Kutas 1993), dealing with a non-canonical structure (Rösler et al. 1993), or an increase in working memory load related to these processes (Coulson et al. 1998). Our results also suggest that the processing of gapping is subject to individual variation. Participants who showed a larger LAN at the determiner may have processed the second clause in a bottom-up fashion, that is, they did not anticipate a gapping construction and inferred only at the determiner that the verb was gapped. These participants, however, were worse at constructing or retrieving the meaning of the sentence as a whole, as shown by their poorer performance on the end of sentence acceptability judgment task. Other participants may have employed a predictive parsing strategy and expected a gapping construction due to the parallelism of the structure (Callahan et al. 2010). Alternatively, they may have delayed analysis until they encountered the second noun in the second clause. In either case, these readers did not show LAN effects at the determiner following the proper name. Yet, these participants were better at semantically evaluating the sentence at the end of the trial. Unfortunately, the current study does not allow us to investigate what the underlying differences are between individuals who elicited LAN effects at the critical position and those who did not. Potential factors may be differences in working memory span (Just and Carpenter 1992; MacDonald et al. 1992; but see Otten and Van Berkum 2009) and/or language experience (Acheson et al. 2008), among other things. For instance, participants with ample reading experience may have encountered more sentences in the past that involved parallelism and gapping than participants with less experience. The more experienced readers, but not the less experienced, may therefore have anticipated the gapped verbs in our experiment more systematically (resulting in no or a smaller LAN), and may have kept better track of the semantics of the entire sentence, leading to better performance at the probe position. The difference between predictive and bottom-up parsing is similar to what has been proposed to explain differences in sentence processing between native speakers and advanced second language learners on the one hand, and less proficient second-language learners, on the other (Kaan et al. 2010). The ability to anticipate information during sentence processing may be tied to higher language proficiency in general. Plausibility Effects at the Noun Even though a subset of our participants showed effects of gapping at the determiner, significant effects of semantic integration between the noun and the gapped verb were seen starting only at 860 ms after noun onset. No N400 effect was observed for the implausible

13 versus plausible gapping conditions (versus their no-gapping controls), and no correlation was found between amplitude differences at the noun and the end-of-sentence judgment. Moreover, the positivity observed for the gapping versus no-gapping conditions at the noun between 700 and 900 ms was not affected by plausibility. This suggests that, even though the semantic information of the gapped verb may have been available or retrieved before the noun, this information was not used and integrated immediately. This is in contrast to apreviousstudyonverbgappinginenglish(kaan et al. 2004), which did show an N400 effect when the gapped verb was implausible in combination with the object remnant in the second clause. One explanation for this difference is that the Kaan et al. (2004)studydidnot use a no-gapping control condition. The N400 effect observed in this study may therefore have been due to differences in semantic fit in the context of the critical noun between the plausible and implausible conditions, regardless of gapping. An alternative explanation is that the participants in our current study may have been in a syntactic processing mode. Even though the end-of-sentence judgment task was semantic in nature, the incongruency between the noun and the gapped verb is a function of the relation between the first and second clause, and, hence, syntactically driven. As a result, participants attention may have been drawn towards the syntactic aspects of the sentences. A number of studies have reported P600 effects rather than N400 effects for apparent semantic violations, especially when participants are asked to give acceptability judgments (e.g., Kim and Osterhout 2005; Kolk et al. 2003; Kuperberg et al. 2006; Van Herten et al. 2006), see Kuperberg (2007)foranoverview. The focus on syntactic processing in the current study may also have delayed the semantic integration of the verbs and noun. Previous research has shown that semantic integration can be blocked in case of phrase structure violations (Hahne and Friederici 2002), or when the participant s attention is drawn to syntactic aspects of the stimuli (Isel and Shen 2011). This may explain why the semantic anomaly affected the positivity only later (after 860 ms). The syntactic processing mode explanation for the effects at the noun is not incompatible with the accounts we proposed of the individual variation in the LAN effects at the determiner preceding the noun. Participants may differ in the extent to which they anticipate upcoming syntactic structure when in a syntactic processing mode: Some may actively anticipate a gapping construction, some may not, and may realize that the verb has been gapped only at the determiner; others may wait till the noun is encountered before integrating the noun phrase into the syntactic structure. In any of these cases, attention may initially still be primarily on syntactic aspects of the input. Gapping Effects at the Noun The ms posterior positivity observed at the noun for gapping versus no-gapping conditions, regardless of the semantic fit between the gapped verb and the noun, is similar to the P600 effects found for the integration of a wh-phrase and its base position (Fiebach et al. 2002; Gouvea et al. 2010; Kaan et al. 2000; Phillips et al. 2005). This suggests that integrating an elided verb with its object involves the same processes as integrating a displaced wh-object with its base position or verb. An alternative explanation for the P600 effect found for the gapping versus no-gapping constructions is that the proposition is complete at the critical noun phrase, and both subject and object NP can be integrated with the verb in the gapping conditions, whereas the verb information is still missing at the comparable noun position in the no-gapping construction. The P600 effect found in this study may therefore not be related to the presence of a displaced element, but rather to having processed a verb with all its arguments. However, previous ERP studies on wh-dependencies have shown a P600 effect at the verb position (Gouvea et al. 2010)

14 or at a base position before the verb (Fiebach et al. 2002) even though the proposition was incomplete at this position. This suggests that a complete proposition is not necessary for integration to occur and a P600 to be elicited. Future research needs to determine if a P600 effect can be elicited independently of non-local dependencies. Regardless of what the P600 reflects, the current results do suggest that in our gapping construction, the elided information is retrieved at or before the noun and is integrated into the structure, similarly to what has been observed for wh-dependencies. One candidate mechanism for accessing both the dislocated wh-phrase in wh-movement constructions and the antecedent of ellipses, is content-addressible memory (Martin and McElree 2008). Content-addressable means that the information associated with the antecedent or wh-phrase can be accessed directly, without having to search serially through previously processed material in working memory. A feature of this mechanism is that it is insensitive to the distance between the dependent elements, in contrast to a serial search model. Using the speed-accuracy tradeoff technique, McElree and colleagues observed that accessing the antecedent in ellipsis constructions (Martin and McElree 2008) as well as wh-dependencies (McElree et al. 2003) indeed was unaffected by linear distance. Once the antecedent information is accessed, it is syntactically integrated by means of a mechanism that is reflected by the P600. Studies suggest that this integration mechanism is insensitive to the length of the dependency as well: in ERPs studies that manipulated the distance between the moved wh-phrase and its base position (Fiebachet al. 2002; Phillips et al. 2005), the amplitude of the P600 found at the base position was not sensitive to the distance between the dependent elements (even though the P600 latency was affected by distance, Phillips et al. (2005)). If indeed ellipsis and wh-movement are processed by means of the same mechanism, both the LAN and the P600 effect in gapping constructions are predicted to be insensitive to the distance between the antecedent verb and the gapping site, keeping everything else constant. Results from Streb et al. (2004) suggest otherwise, but need to be replicated with better controlled conditions. To conclude, our results suggest that the missing verb in verb gapping constructions can be detected at the first possible position (bottom-up), but that this is subject to individual variation. Early detection, however, does not imply that the antecedent verb is immediately and fully integrated into the structure. Rather, the semantic and syntactic integration of the gapped verb is a relatively late process (at least under the current experimental conditions), and involves mechanisms similar to integrating a wh-phrase object with its verb (Gouvea et al. 2010; Kaan et al. 2000; Phillips et al. 2005). Acknowledgments We would like to thank Leon Kenemans and Marieke Lansbergen at the Department of Experimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, for providing access to their lab facilities, Sanne Tolboom for assisting with materials construction and running participants, and Grace Park for her help with data processing. Appendix: Materials Dutch materials used in the experiment and literal English translations. English paraphrases are given for example 1 only. Condition a: Gapping, plausible; b: Gapping, implausible; c: No-Gapping plausible; d: No-Gapping, control for b. 1a. Lisa tekende de vaas voor het raam, en Thomas de bijen in de tuin. Lisa sketched the vase in front of the window, and Thomas the bees in the yard. Lisa sketched the vase in front of the window, and Thomas the bees in the yard.

15 1b. Lisa brak de vaas voor het raam, en Thomas de bijen in de tuin. Lisa broke the vase in front of the window, and Thomas the bees in the yard. Lisa broke the vase in front of the window, and Thomas the bees in the yard. 1c. Lisa tekende de vaas voor het raam, terwijl Thomas de bijen in de tuin wegjoeg. Lisa sketched the vase in front of the window, while Thomas the bees in the yard chased-away. Lisa sketched the vase in front of the window, while Thomas chased away the bees in the yard. 1d. Lisa brak de vaas voor het raam, terwijl Thomas de bijen in de tuin wegjoeg. Lisa broke the vase in front of the window, while Thomas the bees in the yard chased-away. Lisa broke the vase in front of the window, while Thomas chased away the bees in the yard. 2a/b. Renate bekritiseerde/ organiseerde de staking van de monteurs, en Mariska de houding van de arbeiders. Renate critized/organized the strike of the mechanics, and Mariska the stance of the laborers. 2c/d. Renate bekritiseerde/ organiseerde de staking van de monteurs, terwijl Mariska de houding van de arbeiders afkeurde. Renate critized/organized the strike of the mechanics, while Mariska the stance of the laborers reproached. 3a/b. Tessa vroeg/ ontvouwde de plattegrond van de stad, en Simon de weg naar het postkantoor. Tessa asked for/ unfolded the map of the city, and Simon directions to the post office. 3c/d. Tessa vroeg/ ontvouwde de plattegrond van de stad, terwijl Simon de weg naar het postkantoor wees. Tessa asked for/ unfurled the map of the city, while Simon directions to the post office gave. 4a/b. Yvonne verzamelde/ verscheurde de posters van de zangeres, en Maarten de CD s van de band. Yvonne collected/tore up the poster of the female singer, and Maarten the CDs of the band. 4c/d. Yvonne verzamelde/verscheurde de posters van de zangeres, terwijl Maarten de CD s van de band bewaarde. Yvonne collected/tore up the poster of the female singer, while Maarten the CDs of the band saved. 5a/b. Richard oefende/ neuriede de liedjes voor het concert, en Jolien de dans voor de voorstelling. Richard practiced/hummed the songs for the concert, and Jolien the dance for the performance. 5c/d. Richard oefende/ neuriede de liedjes voor het concert, terwijl Jolien de dans voor de voorstelling doornam. Richard practiced/hummed the songs for the concert, while Jolien the dance for the performance rehearsed. 6a/b. Karolien bedacht/ illustreerde het boek over het klimaat, en Sara de video over het milieu. Karolien conceptualized/illustrated the book about the climate, and Sara the video about the environment. 6c/d. Karolien bedacht/ illustreerde het boek over het klimaat, terwijl Sara de video over het milieu regisseerde. Karolien conceptualized/illustrated the book about the climate, while Sara the video about the environment directed.

16 7a/b. Tim sopte/ dweilde de vloer in de kamer, en Erik de koelkast in de keuken. Tim scrubbed/mopped the floor in the room, and Erik the fridge in the kitchen. 7c/d. Tim sopte/dweilde de vloer in de kamer, terwijl Erik de koelkast in de keuken afnam. Tim scrubbed/mopped the floor in the room, while Erik the fridge in the kitchen cleaned. 8a/b. Manon legde/ braadde de hamburger op de barbecue, en Fiona de lepels op de tafel. Manon put/grilled the hamburger on the barbecue, and Fiona the spoons on the table. 8c/d. Manon legde/ braadde de hamburger op de barbecue, terwijl Fiona de lepels op de tafel rangschikte. Manon put/grilled the hamburger on the barbecue, while Fiona the spoons on the table arranged. 9a/b. Gerrit roemde/ beloonde de knecht vanwege zijn werklust, en Sjoerd de truck vanwege zijn trekkracht. Gerrit praised/rewarded the servant for his energy, and Sjoerd the truck for its power. 9c/d. Gerrit roemde/ beloonde de knecht vanwege zijn werklust, terwijl Sjoerd de truck vanwege zijn trekkracht aanprees. Gerrit praised/rewarded the servant for his energy, while Sjoerd the truck for its power recommended. 10a/b.Carla wiste/ beluisterde het interview op het bandje, en Jantien de software op de diskette. Carla deleted/listened to the interview on the tape, and Jantien the software on the floppy drive. 10c/d. Carla wiste/ beluisterde het interview op het bandje, terwijl Jantien de software op de diskette installeerde. Carla deleted/listened to the interview on the tape, while Jantien the software on the floppy drive installed. 11a/b. Emma nam/at de ijscoupe van de dag, en Kevin de koffie van de week. Emma had/ate the sundae daily-special, and Kevin the coffee weekly-special. 11c/d. Emma nam/at de ijscoupe van de dag, terwijl Kevin de koffie van de week dronk. Emma had/ate the sundae daily-special, while Kevin the coffee weekly special-drank. 12a/b. Anouk zond/ schreef de kaart aan haar vader, en Julia de bloemen aan haar moeder. Anouk sent/wrote the card to her father, and Julia the flowers to her mother. 12c/d. Anouk zond/schreef de kaart aan haar vader, terwijl Julia de bloemen aan haar moeder stuurde. Anouk sent/wrote the card to her father, while Julia the flowers to her mother shipped. 13a/b. Inez bereidde/ fileerde de forel voor het diner, en Robert de quiche voor de lunch. Inez prepared/filleted the trout for the dinner, and Robert the quiche for the lunch. 13c/d. Inez bereidde/ fileerde de forel voor het diner, terwijl Robert de quiche voor de lunch aanreikte. Inez prepared/filleted the trout for the dinner, while Robert the quiche for the lunch passed along. 14a/b. Jeroen koos/ breide de sjaal van de voetbalclub, en Rik de blouse van het hockeyteam. Jeroen selected/knitted the scarf of the soccer team, and Rik the jersey of the hockey team 14c/d. Jeroen koos/ breide de sjaal van de voetbalclub, terwijl Rik de blouse van het hockeyteam aantrok. Jeroen selected/knitted the scarf of the soccer team, while Rik the jersey of the hockey team put on.

17 15a/b. Kim zocht/las de brief van haar vriend, en Daan de foto van zijn vriendin. Kim looked for/read the letter from her friend, and Daan the picture of his girlfriend. 15c/d. Kim zocht/las de brief van haar vriend, terwijl Daan de foto van zijn vriendin ophing. Kim looked for/read the letter from her friend, while Daan the picture of his girlfriend put up. 16a/b. Britt pakte/ smeerde de crackers voor haar dochter, en Amber de cola voor haar zoon. Britt took/prepared the crackers for her daughter, and Amber the coke for her son. 16c/d. Britt pakte/ smeerde de crackers voor haar dochter, terwijl Amber de cola voor haar zoon inschonk. Britt took/prepared the crackers for her daughter, while Amber the coke for her son poured. 17a/b. Nick voltooide/ zeilde de tocht over de oceaan, en Lars de wandeling door de woestijn. Nick completed/sailed the voyage over the ocean, and Lars the hike through the desert 17c/d. Nick voltooide/ zeilde de tocht over de oceaan, terwijl Lars de wandeling door de woestijn aflegde. Nick completed/sailed the voyage over the ocean, while Lars the hike through the desert finished. 18a/b. Mike snoeide/ plukte de rozen in het perkje, en Lotte de bomen in de tuin. Mike pruned/picked the roses in the bed, and Lotte the trees in the yard. 18c/d. Mike snoeide/ plukte de rozen in het perkje, terwijl Lotte de bomen in de tuin omhakte. Mike pruned/picked the roses in the bed, while Lotte the trees in the yard chopped. 19a/b. Lucas verzorgde/ roskamde de paarden in de stal, en Ernst de kippen op het erf. Lucas took care of/ brushed the horses in the stable, and Ernst the chickens in the courtyard. 19c/d. Lucas verzorgde/ roskamde de paarden in de stal, terwijl Ernst de kippen op het erf voerde. Lucas took care of/ brushed the horses in the stable, while Ernst the chickens in the courtyard fed. 20a/b. Karin schilderde/ beklom de bergen bij de kust, en Michelle de bossen op het eiland. Karin painted/climbed the mountains near the coast, and Michelle the woods on the island. 20c/d. Karin schilderde/ beklom de bergen bij de kust, terwijl Michelle de bossen op het eiland doorwandelde. Karin painted/climbed the mountains near the coast, while Michelle the woods on the island hiked-through. 21a/b. Femke bracht/smolt de kaas voor de fondue, en Niels de likeur voor het toetje. Femke brought/melted the cheese for the fondue, and Niels the liquor for the dessert. 21c/d. Femke bracht/smolt de kaas voor de fondue, terwijl Niels de likeur voor het toetje meenam. Femke brought/melted the cheese for the fondue, while Niels the liquor for the dessert provided. 22a/b. Melissa serveerde/ bakte de cake met de nootjes, en Sam de yoghurt met het fruit. Melissa served/baked the cake with the nuts, and Sam the yogurt with the fruit. 22c/d. Melissa serveerde/ bakte de cake met de nootjes, terwijl Sam de yoghurt met het fruit opdiende. Melissa served/baked the cake with the nuts, while Sam the yogurt with the fruit served. 23a/b. Tom reinigde/ schuurde de treden van de trap, en Jesse de plaid op de bank. Tom cleaned/sanded the steps of the staircase, and Jesse the blanket on the couch.

18 23c/d. Tom reinigde/schuurde de treden van de trap, terwijl Jesse de plaid op de bank uitklopte. Tom cleaned/sanded the steps of the staircase, while Jesse the blanket on the couch shook out. 24a/b. Susan telde/ kalmeerde de kinderen in de bus, en Edwin de tassen in de kofferbak. Susan counted/calmed the children on the bus, and Edwin the bags in the trunk. 24c/d. Susan telde/ kalmeerde de kinderen in de bus, terwijl Edwin de tassen in de kofferbak opstapelde. Susan counted/calmed the children on the bus, while Edwin the bags in the trunk stacked. 25a/b. Bram veilde/ brandde de CD van de rock-ster, en Daphne de prenten van de kunstenaar. Bram auctioned/burned the CD of the rockstar, and Daphne the prints of the artist. 25c/d. Bram veilde/ brandde de CD van de rock-ster, terwijl Daphne de prenten van de kunstenaar bekeek. Bram auctioned/burned the CD of the rockstar, while Daphne the prints of the artist inspected. 26a/b. Robin zag/ plantte de geraniums in het plantsoen, en Milan de stenen langs het tuinpad. Robin saw/planted the geraniums in the park, and Milan the rocks along the garden path. 26c/d. Robin zag/ plantte de geraniums in het plantsoen, terwijl Milan de stenen langs het tuinpad stapelde. Robin saw/planted the geraniums in the park, and Milan the rocks along the garden path stacked. 27a/b. Sophie haalde/ zaagde de planken voor de schutting, en Dennis de kussens voor de tuinstoelen. Sophie took/sawed the planks for the fence, and Dennis the cushions for the deck chairs. 27c/d. Sophie haalde/ zaagde de planken voor de schutting, terwijl Dennis de kussens voor de tuinstoelen uitzocht. Sophie took/sawed the planks for the fence, while Dennis the cushions for the deck chairs selected. 28a/b. Joris verorberde/ lepelde de soep met de balletjes, en Tineke de salade met de tomaten. Joris devoured/spooned the soup with the meatballs, and Tineke the salad with the tomatoes. 28c/d. Joris verorberde/ lepelde de soep met de balletjes, terwijl Tineke de salade met de tomaten klaarmaakte. Joris devoured/spooned the soup with the meatballs, while Tineke the salad with the tomatoes prepared. 29a/b. Hilde onderhield/ maaide het gazon in de voortuin, en Ralph de paden in de achtertuin. Hilde maintained/ mowed the lawn in the front yard, and Ralph the paths in the back yard. Hilde onderhield/ maaide het gazon in de voortuin, terwijl Ralph de paden in de achtertuin harkte. Hilde maintained/ mowed the lawn in the front yard, while Ralph the paths in the back yard raked. 30a/b. Dorien gebruikte/ strooide de talkpoeder op haar voeten, en Frederik de deo onder zijn oksels. Dorien used/sprinkled the talcum powder on her feet, and Frederik the deodorant on his armpits.

19 30c/d. Dorien gebruikte/ strooide de talkpoeder op haar voeten, terwijl Frederik de deo onder zijn oksels spoot. Dorien used/sprinkled the talcum powder on her feet, while Frederik the deodorant on his armpits sprayed. 31a/b. Bob stuurde/ reed de auto naar het westen, en Victor de boot richting het oosten. Bob steered/drove the car towards the west, and Victor the boat towards the east. 31c/d. Bob stuurde/ reed de auto naar het westen, terwijl Victor de boot richting het oosten laveerde. Bob steered/drove the car towards the west, while Victor the boat towards the east navigated. 32a/b. Bianca filmde/ schoor de schapen in het weiland, en Simone de tractor op de dijk. Bianca filmed/shaved the sheep in the meadow, and Simone the tractor on the levy. 32c/d. Bianca filmde de schapen/ schoor in het weiland, terwijl Simone de tractor op de dijk fotografeerde. Bianca filmed/shaved the sheep in the meadow, while Simone the tractor on the levy photographed. 33a/b. Remco kocht/ poetste de schoenen met de veters, en Hugo de broek met de streepjes. Remco bought/polished the shoes with the laces, and Hugo the trousers with the stripes. 33c/d. Remco kocht/ poetste de schoenen met de veters, terwijl Hugo de broek met de streepjes ruilde. Remco bought/polished the shoes with the laces, while Hugo the trousers with the stripes exchanged. 34a/b. Wouter repareerde/ plakte de band van de fiets, en Chantal de remmen van de brommer. Wouter fixed/patched the tire of the bike, and Chantal the breaks of the moped. 34c/d. Wouter repareerde/ plakte de band van de fiets, terwijl Chantal de remmen van de brommer controleerde. Wouter fixed/patched the tire of the bike, while Chantal the breaks of the moped checked. 35a/b. Sabine accentueerde/ epileerde de wenkbrauwen van het fotomodel, en Evelien de lippen van de actrice. Sabine accentuated/ depilated the eyebrows of the model, and Evelien the lips of the actress. 35c/d. Sabine accentueerde/ epileerde de wenkbrauwen van het fotomodel, terwijl Evelien de lippen van de actrice stiftte. Sabine accentuated/ depilated the eyebrows of the model, while Evelien the lips of the actress painted. 36a/b. Eline won/ boekte de reis naar het eiland, en Moniek de koelkast met de vriezer. Eline won/booked the trip to the island, and Moniek the fridge with the freezer. 36c/d. Eline won/boekte de reis naar het eiland, terwijl Moniek de koelkast met de vriezer ontving. Eline won/booked the trip to the island, while Moniek the fridge with the freezer received. 37a/b. Mirjam volbracht/ liep de wandeling in drie uur, en Maud de fietstocht in dertig minuten. Mirjam finished/ walked the hiking route in 3 h, and Maud the cycling tour in 30 min. 37c/d. Mirjam volbracht/liep de wandeling in drie uur, terwijl Maud de fietstocht in dertig minuten aflegde. Mirjam finished/ walked the hiking route in 3 h, while Maud the cycling tour in 30 min completed.

20 38a/b. Ellen noteerde/ berekende de score van de deelnemers, en Hans de namen van de scheidsrechters. Ellen took down/ calculated the score of the participants, and Hans the names of the referees. 38c/d. Ellen noteerde/ berekende de score van de deelnemers, terwijl Hans de namen van de scheidsrechters opschreef. Ellen took down/ calculated the score of the participants, while Hans the names of the referees wrote-down. 39a/b. Natalie veroverde/ hees de vlag bij het teamspel, en Marloes de prijs bij de quiz. Natalie captured/hoisted the flag at the team game, and Marloes the prize for the quiz. 39c/d. Natalie veroverde/ hees de vlag bij het teamspel, terwijl Marloes de prijs bij de quiz bemachtigde. Natalie captured /hoisted the flag at the team game, while Marloes the prize for the quiz grabbed. 40a/b. Koen verving/ timmerde de kast in de woonkamer, en Judith de lamp in de gang. Koen replaced/nailed-together the cabinet in the living room, and Judith the light in the hallway. 40c/d. Koen verving/ timmerde de kast in de woonkamer, terwijl Judith de lamp in de gang ophing. Koen replaced/nailed-together the cabinet in the living room, and Judith the light in the hallway put-up. 41a/b. Ruud gooide/ rolde de bal naar het doel, en Kristel de pijltjes naar het dartbord. Ruud threw/rolled the ball towards the goal, and Kristel the darts towards the dartboard. 41c/d. Ruud gooide/ rolde de bal naar het doel, terwijl Kristel de pijltjes naar het dartbord wierp. Ruud threw/rolled the ball towards the goal, while Kristel the darts towards the dartboard thrusted. 42a/b. Laurens prees/ feliciteerde de kampioenen van het toernooi, en Anita de sfeer tijdens de wedstrijden. Laurens praised/ congratulated the champions of the tournament, and Anita the atmosphere during the games. 42c/d. Laurens prees/ feliciteerde de kampioenen van het toernooi, terwijl Anita de sfeer tijdens de wedstrijden bejubelde. Laurens praised/ congratulated the champions of the tournament, while Anita the atmosphere during the games lauded. 43a/b. Saskia bewonderde/ aaide de marmot in het hok, en Karlijn de goudvis in het aquarium. Saskia admired/stroked the guinea pig in the cage, and Karlijn the goldfish in the aquarium. 43c/d. Saskia bewonderde/ aaide de marmot in het hok, terwijl Karlijn de goudvis in het aquarium voerde. Saskia admired/stroked the guinea pig in the cage, while Karlijn the goldfish in the aquarium fed. 44a/b. Michiel observeerde/ molk de koeien in de stal, en Lisette de ganzen op het veld. Michiel observed/milked the cows in the stable, and Lisette the geese in the fields. 44c/d. Michiel observeerde/ molk de koeien in de stal, terwijl Lisette de ganzen op het veld voerde. Michiel observed/milked the cows in the stable, while Lisette the geese in the fields fed.